View Full Version : And further with the glide slope...
In Belfast, before localiser established we were cleared to "descend to 2800' and further with the glide slope". I take it this is not a clearance for the approach. Could someone explain it further for me please?
gul dukat
3rd Nov 2001, 16:03
I expect what was meant was ""when established on the localiser, descend on the ILS".
Of course if in doubt please ask for clarification .In this specific case(of which I obviously have no details)I cannot comment,but sounds like the guy was trying to stop you levelling at 2800 and then ending up ABOVE your ideal profile.Call in for a visit !
HEATHROW DIRECTOR
3rd Nov 2001, 20:49
This has been dealt with comprehensively elsewhere.. In the Uk we're not allowed to use the phrase "Cleared for the ILS" so what you got is as close as you'll get. We say it all day at Heathrow too..
OK - now I have done a search and read about 8 pages of discussion and am not much further ahead on my quest for enlightenment.
Why in the UK are ATC not allowed to say "cleared for the ILS Rwy 23", or is that just a no no for a radar vectored ILS rather than the full procedural monty.
We were cleared to "descend to 2,800' and further with the glide"; we established and then I armed approach mode which is a bit of a palaver to disengage in our aircraft. The captain said that I should have just gone done in vertical speed to follow the glide as we were not "cleared for the approach".
I doubt many of us are stupid enough to descend with the glide before establishing on the localiser. What did ATC intend for us to do? Was he leaving himself an out for traffic ahead of us? or just avoiding the "cleared for the ILS" nasty? What does he intend? What if we lost comms?
Why does it have to be like this? It leaves us pilots dangling.
gul dukat
4th Nov 2001, 00:29
I expect ..as a Belfast controller that he was busy doing other things in the TMA and expected you to decend with the ILS .In the event of comms failure I would (personally)expect you to follow the ILS to MDH/DH and look out for the steady green from the tower!As Heathrow Director says you got as close as you will get to "cleared for the ils"and this way you at least can keep going down ! Hope this helps! :)
[ 03 November 2001: Message edited by: gul dukat ]
[ 04 November 2001: Message edited by: gul dukat ]
eyeinthesky
7th Nov 2001, 23:52
Your original question did not make it clear whether you were on a closing heading and told to intercept the localiser. If so, then it is quite clear: Descend now to 2800 ft on the intercept heading. Level off at that level if necessary until established on the localiser and the glidepath comes in, then follow that. I think he might have been trying to avoid the situation where he was busy doing something else and then you didn't descend on the ILS (as you shouldn't without clearance) when you intercepted the glideslope.
If you weren't on an intercept heading then I would take it to mean descend now to 2800 feet and expect further descent on the glideslope of the ILS when cleared to establish. In essence it's no different to descending to platform height on a procedural ILS and then following the glideslope down.
I suppose only he knew exactly what he meant. Like many questions posted here, if you are not sure what we mean, ASK AT THE TIME. Better that than making an assumption and at best getting a B******ing and at worst a close encounter with another aircraft or the ground!
FlapsOne
9th Nov 2001, 03:45
If you are being vectored for an ILS approach to any airfield, surely, at some stage, you must be CLEARED to do it! Otherwise it makes a complete nonsense of having the approach in the first place.
At one of Europe's busiest airports, Schipol, when often 3 runways are in concurrent use, you are descended to an altitude, given a closing heading, and CLEARED FOR THE ILS RW??. Less RT, less hassle, never a problem. Why do we make things so different in UK?
Heathrow Director: Why is the phrase " cleared for the ILS runway _ _ _ " not allowed in the UK . It is a very standard phrase in Canada.
HEATHROW DIRECTOR
9th Nov 2001, 12:02
To all who asked, the reason why we can't use "cleared for the ILS" is because some pilots interpreted that as a clearance to descend to very low low altitudes many miles from touchdown. At Heathrow there is a great deal of other traffic flying around under our ILS approaches which has to be protected so our regulators decided that we can only tell pilots to establish on the loc.. and then descend on the ILS. Personally I still think that it is open to misinterpretation but I don't make the rules!!
And to Flapsone.. since this new phraseology was introduced many years ago I've never "cleared" an aircraft for any type of approach at Heathrow so I wonder how they got down!!!
Stan Woolley
9th Nov 2001, 13:57
I for one appreciate the practical'approach' on all sides, this instance seems to me to be making a mountain out of a molehill.
If you're not sure, either ask for clarification or don't do it.
I would like to thank all the UK controllers for their continued excellent level of service,in spite of the many current pressures.
surface wind
10th Nov 2001, 15:05
OLEO
It was probably me. As I remember you were routing via Blaca into BFS. As you were already LOC established I was just trying to keep you on a constant descent profile therefore descended you to 2800ft (MSA).
Yes I was wrong I should have said "descend to 2800ft" and then said "descend on the ILS" not "further with the GS".
I shall fast for 3 days and report to my LCE upon return. Sorry for the confusion but the guys at BFS will do anything for Easyjet and Go at the minute. Anything that will save our last few airlines a few bucks!!!
As for being busy ------ MMMMMMMMM
El-Surface-Wind-0
:D :D :D
Surely the UK should just adopt the ICAO "cleared ILS approach" phraseology, and if necessary change the procedures at Heathrow to take into account the helicopter routes.
I take it that the "..very low altitude.." described by Heathrow Director is the platform level for the approach (I think 2500 feet on westerlies - correct me if I'm wrong!). Assuming that most aircraft will join final at around ten miles, why not renotify the platform level as 3000 feet (for example)?
If there is something blindingly obvious at LL that i've missed, then forgive my ignorance; we've looked at this (albeit informally) in some detail at our unit, and the ICAO standard does seem the most sensible.
That said, our MATS 2 says the same as others in th UK, so don't expect to be "cleared for the approach" at EDI anytime soon!